Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. PRAKASHWATI DEVI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Prakashwati Devi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 21326 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 12517 (28 July 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no.31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21326 of 2003

------

Smt.Prakashwati Devi

Versus

State of U.P.& and others

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 29.3.2003 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Fatehpur.  Further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay family pension to the petitioner and continue it to pay month to month.

The petitioner is the widow of late Jauhari Lal who was appointed  as Assistant Teacher in primary school in Gangchauli district Fatehpur on 7.2.1973 and he died on 20.12.1975.  The petitioner is a widow.  She made several representations, which have been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition.  The State Government has issued a Government Order from time to time.  A Government Order dated 31.3.1982, 16.6.1984 and 18.4.2001 have been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition.  The petitioner filed a Writ petition before this Court, which was numbered as Writ Petition No.2704 of 2003.  The said writ petition was disposed of finally directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months.  The certified copy was served upon the respondents but the respondents by impugned order dated 29.3.2003 passed an order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for family pension on the ground that as the husband of the petitioner died on 20.12.1975 after serving only for a period of two years and the family pension to the dependence of teachers has been made available from 1.10.1981 in spite of fact that the person has died prior to 1.10.1981 but as the petitioner's died on 20.12.1975 and the new pension scheme came into force from 31.3.1977 as he does not come under the perview of the aforesaid Government Order, as such, not entitled for pension hence the present writ petition.

The notices were issued and respondents were directed to file a counter affidavit.  Counter and rejoinders affidavits have been exchanged as such, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to family pension and various others similarly situated are being paid family pension therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for pension.  The cut of date fixed is arbitrary and violative to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.  In view of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner submits that the she is entitled for family pension.

The reliance has been placed upon two judgments of this Court reported in 2002(1) Educational Service Cases (Allahabad) 370 Musammat Sajida Begum Vs. Secretary Basic Education and others and has submitted that the Hon'ble Court has made applicable the G.O. dated 31.3.1982 and has directed to pay the family pension.  Another judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is (2001) 4 Educational Service Cases, Allahabad 1589 Shanti Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. and others.  In view of the aforesaid judgment, it has been submitted that in spite of the fact that petitioner's husband died prior to 1.1.1989 this Court had directed to pay the family pension.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents has submitted that the husband of the petitioner was appointed on 7.2.1973 as Assistant Teacher and died during the service on 20.12.1975 at that time only the ''Triple Benefit Scheme' was in existence for providing pension.  In the 'Triple Benefit Scheme' the family pension admissible in the cases of deceased who have completed 20 years 10 months service.  Accordingly the petitioner is not entitled for family pension on the basis of ''Triple Benefit Scheme'.  The Government Order dated 31.3.1982 itself says that new pension scheme is having effective since 1.10.1981.  As the husband of the petitioner died in the year 1975 she is not entitled to avail the benefit of new pension scheme on the basis of government order.

Further submission has been made on behalf of the respondents placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.27338 of 2005 Nathho Begum Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 17.8.2005.  On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, the counsel for the respondents has submitted that considering the various aspects of the matter and same government order and similar point was involved regarding entitlement of family pension, this Court has held that in such situation the petitioner in the said writ petition is not entitled for granting family pension and is clearly outside the scope of the same.  Further it has been submitted that the said judgment has considered various judgments of the Apex Court and the provisions for entitlement of family pension in such a situation as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and have perused the judgments cited on behalf of the parties.

In the fact situation, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in 1973 and died in service in 1975.  Only serving in the institution for a period of two years at that time the ''Triple Benefit Scheme' was introduced, which was made effective from 1.10.1964.  The benefit occurring to the employees to the said scheme was (i) Contributory Provident Fund (ii) Compulsory Life Insurance (iii) Pension including Family Pension.  For making these benefits more effective Rules were made providing therein terms and conditions on which these benefits were extendable.  The said Rules were known as "Uttar Pradesh State Aided Educational Institutions Employees Contributory Provident Fund.  Insurance Pension Rule Chapter-I of the said rules provided for that these Rules shall apply to the permanent employees serving in State aided institution. The aforesaid rule is to ensure all three types of service benefits namely Contributory Provident Fund, Insurance and Pension.  Rules 17 deals regarding the liability for pension of an employee and in respect of entitlement of pension.  Rule 24 deals with family pension and as per said Rule 24 Family Pension not exceeding the amount specified can be granted for a period of 10 years to the family of an employee who dies either while still in service or after retirement, after completion not less than 20 years of qualifying service.  In view of the aforesaid rules and government order, there is an undisputed position which is clear is to the effect that the petitioner's husband was appointed in 1973 and died on 20.12.1975 only after completing two years of service.  He was not having qualified service for the purpose of pension.

I have considered the judgments placed by the counsel for the parties.  I am in full agreement of the judgment of Nathho Begum Vs. State of U.P.(Supra) to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled for family pension.  In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.  

There shall be no order as to costs.

28.7.2006

SKD      


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.